http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&e=1&u=/ap/20030211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq Powell Ties 'bin Laden' Message to Iraq 4 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo! By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told a Senate panel Tuesday that what appears to be a new statement from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) shows why the world needs to be concerned about Iraqi ties to terrorism. Powell said he read a transcript of "what bin Laden — or who we believe to be bin Laden" will be saying on the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite station later Tuesday, "where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq." But Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press his station has no such tape. And Powell, when asked by a reporter to comment on the station's denial, declined to do so. "Be patient, it's coming," Powell said. The secretary earlier told the Senate Budget Committee, "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored." At a separate hearing, CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet said that he, too, was aware of a new communication from bin Laden, but told the Senate Intelligence Committee he had not been briefed on its contents. "I don't know what the contents will be," Tenet told the panel. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites), asked about this, said Powell had "summed up what we have heard — accurately. I think this is something that you may hear more about." He said Powell "wouldn't have said what he said if he didn't have a basis for it." Pressed during the daily news briefing to say whether the administration actually had access to the broadcast or a transcript of it, Fleischer replied, "I couldn't tell you the precise form of the knowledge of it." But the spokesman reiterated that he thought Powell had a legitimate basis for raising the issue. The Capitol Hill appearance was Powell's second before the Senate since his presentation to the U.N. Security Council last week. At that time, he detailed his indictment of Iraq as a deceptive stockpiler of weapons of mass destruction. Lawmakers have praised Powell's U.N. performance, but many Democrats remain skeptical about whether war is necessary, particularly if key U.S. allies remain opposed. The split between the United States and its allies widened when France, Germany and Belgium jointly vetoed on Monday a U.S.-backed measure to authorize NATO (news - web sites) to make plans to protect Turkey if Iraq attacks it. Russia then joined France and Germany in demanding strengthened weapons inspections. Responding to concerns of Sen. Ernest Hollings (news, bio, voting record), D-S.C., that the United States was putting its international alliances in jeopardy over Iraq, Powell said "we're not breaking up the alliance." Powell noted that the U.N. resolution demanding that Iraq disarm was approved unanimously by the Security Council and said it is the United Nations (news - web sites)' responsibility to enforce the resolution. "Who's breaking up the alliance? Not the United States," Powell said. "The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities." Powell noted that while "much is being said about disagreement in NATO," that 16 members — including the United States and Turkey — back the U.S. position, while three — France, Germany and Russia — oppose it. "I think this is time for the alliance to say to the fellow alliance member, `We agree with you and if you are concerned, we are concerned.' That's what alliances are all about and I hope NATO will be doing the right thing with respect to Turkey within the next 24 hours," he said. Powell said the United States is prepared to work with the 14 other nations to give Turkey the helps it needs if it cannot win formal NATO support. Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla, said of France "I'm amazed at their presumption that they are controlling the (NATO) alliance, but they are not a part of the military alliance." France's stand on Turkey could signal its steadfast opposition or even a threatened veto to a U.S.-backed resolution at the United Nations that would authorize force to disarm Iraq and remove President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) from power. Fleischer said earlier Tuesday there was still a reasonable expectation that President Bush (news - web sites) could persuade the Security Council to adopt a new resolution. "At the end of the day, the president would like to believe the United Nations will be relevant," he told reporters. In Brussels, a second day of heated negotiations failed to end one of the worst crises in NATO's 53-year history: a split triggered when France, Germany and Belgium blocked U.S. plans to defend Turkey in a possible new Persian Gulf war (news - web sites). After behind-the-scene talks throughout the day, ambassadors from the 19 NATO countries met for only 20 minutes Tuesday evening before ending the session. In Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors paid a surprise visit to a Baghdad missile plant Tuesday as international experts met behind closed doors in New York to assess whether Iraq's short-range missiles can fly farther than permitted under U.N. edicts. At the U.N. Security Council, the United States began consultations with other countries on a new resolution designed to strengthen Bush's hand if he should decide to go to war. He also is reserving the option of going to war outside the United Nations, with a coalition of supporting nations. Bush said Monday that France was a longtime friend of the United States, but said its position was shortsighted. "I hope they'll reconsider," he said. "Upset is not the proper word," Bush said when reporters asked for his views on France's diplomacy. He went on to register his disappointment with President Jacques Chirac, who wants to extend inspections and seek a peaceful resolution with Saddam.
I would be curious to hear the contents of the tape. I do not think Powell would bring it up if it didnt exist and he wasnt confident of it`s content. On a side note , France is starting to piss me off
"Be patient, it's coming...the sound guys in the Pentagon voice-over department are almost finished".
I'd wager bin Laden would just looooove a US invasion of Iraq, don't you MadMax? He'll assist the Bush admistration in this department. If the US invades Iraq, bin Laden will have oh-so-many enthusiastic new recruits.
So what do you do then? If you do nothing and try NOT to piss them off they still attack us and they get their way. So, if you go after them they attack us but they don't necessarily get their way. What do you do?
that reminds me of dennis hopper's line in Speed. a bad movie, nonetheless. oh, by the way...i don't have an answer to your question
Same argument was used against the Afghan campaign. The "Arab street" hardly rose up in furor, it's debateable whether a regime change in Iraq will increase terrorist recruitment any more or less so than the Afghani campaign did, if it did at all. On one hand, the U.S. will be portrayed by the Islamist lunatics in other areas of the Middle East as an imperial power hellbent on destroying Islam and aiding the Zionist conspiracy for world domination and whatever other boilerplate they feel like spewing; on the other hand you'll have millions of Iraqis saying "Hey, this is pretty ****ing great." You don't see too many Afghanis pissed off at the U.S. for overthrowing the Taliban. The U.S.'s post-war handling of Iraq will have far more to do with any increased Arab hostility than the regime change will.
well, this is the thing, if Al Qaeda was working with Iraq then you have to question the strategy. If Al Qaeda had access to their nuclear material and they had access to their technolongy, then why give up your best resource by making this statement. If you don't have access to any resources then an attack is a good thing. Al Qaeda wouldn't lose anything. They would only gain Arab support.
I'd wager bin Laden would just looooove a US invasion of Iraq, don't you MadMax? He'll assist the Bush admistration in this department. If the US invades Iraq, bin Laden will have oh-so-many enthusiastic new recruits. This actually is one of bin Laden's stated goals. He wants to create a holy war and what he needs to have that happen is make the U.S. look like its attacking Islam. He hoped we'd do it after 9/11 and we didn't. This is part II. Whether he's really working with Iraq, who knows, but he'd definitely love for us to invade them.
why would he have so many new recruits? i don't understand this line of thinking. its pretty well known that most of the arab states wouldn't shed a tear of saddam were gone. their fears are mainly of whether or not the iraqi state would fragment if he is removed. i think if the US uses this opportunity correctly then we will be able to show the world that we are committed to democracy and freedom and stopping ruthless warlords where we can. by using this opportunity correctly i mean creating a democratic republic of iraq and helping rebuild the infrastructure of iraq after the war has ended. i don't know if i am going to be considered an idiot, but i think the administration has been pretty level headed and hasn't rushed into anything without thinking. with that being said i think they understand that they cannot screw this up by letting civilians die or by pulling out of iraq before a stable state is created. then from that maybe some of the possible recruits from iraq wouldn't want to die for a cause like that, but instead would want to live and build something better for their family. and also the possible recruits from other arab nations would see that maybe the US isn't being so selfish in the first place. i know i am being an idealist here, but that is how i see things playing out.
Robbie, I think that is wishfull thinking. Unfortunately I think based on their own media bias many in that part of the world will still view Americans as attacking Islam.
well i think the media bias can only be taken so far. people still have minds of their own. its like what a few pakistanis i know said about after 9/11 and the media showed video of people celebrating in the streets. they were like thats such a small segment of the population that it skews everything when thats all the media shows. i dunno...i know my history degree that i am about to get isn't worth much, but one thing i have learned is that people in general are level headed. they may not like american government policies, but i don't think they see it as america attacking islam. maybe they see it as america being oil greedy or at worst anti-arab (even though those are incorrect as well), but i think anti-islam is too far. islam is too broad and too diverse. more than likely i bet some agree with america and its stance on removing saddam (eg. the iraqi people) or even other arabs who see saddam for what he is and not what the media portrays the US's goals in the region to be.
Bin Laden states: "Anyone who helps America, from the Iraqi hypocrites (opposition) or Arab rulers ... whoever fights with them or offers them bases or administrative assistance, or any kind of support or help, even if only with words, to kill Muslims in Iraq, should know that he is an apostate." mmm apostate... I've heard that before and I think I know what it means but just to double check, let's check the dictionary shall we kids? ah yes here we go... apostate \A*pos"tate\, n. [L. apostata, Gr. ?, fr. ?. See Apostasy.] 1. One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to which he before adhered; esp., one who has forsaken his religion for another; a pervert; a renegade. Ah yes, renegade, Oh I know! Kind of like a person who takes a very peaceful religion and bastardizes it so that he can kill innocent women and children and non-combatants. I hope the citizens of Iraq are thinking like we all do when a friend gets a little too drunk and starts shooting his mouth off to the 6'10" ex-boxer, doorman about what a jerk he is for carding him. "Dude, shut up. I swear I will leave you here. Ahhh crap that's it, you are on your own."
This is really a ridiculous idea, and I just have to address it. Understand this: those who are willing and able to join Al Qaeda already have. It is not like Al Qaeda has a recruiting booth in downtown Riyhad that is going to be mobbed by pissed off, able-bodied Saudis who weren't sure they wanted to fight until the Iraqi people were liberated. Yes, the Arabs will whine and b**** and scream bloody murder while the bombs are falling, but just as in Afghanistan they will promptly shut the hell up when they realize that 22 million of their neighbors, whom they profess to care about, are freed. Incidentally, the terror threat is not going to increase for much the same reason: Al Qaeda and their associates are already doing their best to kill Americans - they are already giving it their all. It's not like they've just been chilling for the past year, but will suddenly be aroused again once we enter Iraq... They are already working as hard as they can to kill us. These are two of the more ridiculous reasons given by anti-war activists to stay out of Iraq. It does not take a rocket scientist, or even a janitor named Bobby Ray, to see that these arguments have no merit.
A few things are painfully apparent: 1. OBL is alive and presumably well; 2. This tape carried some level of instruction or trigger to his cells throughout the world - Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Europe are far more likely targets than America; 3. This should put to rest any of the ridiculous conspiracy theories regarding the administration heightening the threat level for political reasons.
Let me see if I have this straight ... We have a tape that (if it's legit) proves Osama Bin Laden, American enemy #1, is still alive. However, we're trying to use this tape as proof we should attack Iraq?!?! Am I the only one that sees a disconnect here? Has the Bush administration simply given up on capturing Osama? I realize that Iraq is a much easier target, however they weren't the ones that attacked us. I'm beginning to suspect a political slight-of-hand trick here.
i don't think the search for bin laden has been deserted at all...it just relies more on intelligence and covert operations than a full scale attack to remove a regime. you're not going to hear about gearing up to go get bin laden...that operation was in place even during the clinton administration, as i understand it. if iraq and al qaeda are tied together, then the potential is disastrous given WMD in Iraq.
Early word from the NSA, who'll spend another 24 hours or so evaluating the audio, is that this is OBL. How does an Iraqi campaign affect the hunt for OBL in any way?
Mrs. JB: We can do both (hunt down Al Qaeda and go after Saddam). In fact, one is likely to help in the other cause - a wealth of new information on Al Qaeda is likely to spill forth from a liberated Iraq. But going after Saddam in no way hinders the hunt for Al Qaeda and Osama. That is largely a law enforcement task, and when it does require military assets those assets are relatively small. Only about 15,000 troops total are actually hunting for Al Qaeda globally; any more would be a waste of manpower, because it is not a problem that you need to throw armored divisions at. We can - and will - do both. Oh, and as far as knowing whether or not they were involved in the attack on us - how do you know? You seem to be sure. Are you aware that no airliner fuselages have been found in Afghanistan's training camps? One would presumably be needed to train the hijackers who committed the 9/11 attacks. There is one in Salman Pak, though - just south of Baghdad, I believe. Defectors have told us that groups of 4 to 6 men are trained there (on a 707 fuselage) to take over a plane with unarmed combat. Alternately, they use small, concealable edged weapons... Sound familiar?
That's cool. I actually didn't know we were still looking for OBL. He just never seems to make the news anymore. Although I'm not convinced about the need for war in Iraq, I am glad to know we're still actively seeking Osama. Hey treeman -- stay safe, okay?
